The use of electronic devices, such as cell phones, smartphones, tablets, phablets, cameras, computers, GPS devices, music players, etc. by a driver of a vehicle has become commonplace in modern society. Unfortunately, use of such devices is distracting. This is particularly true if the electronic device is required to be hand held by the driver. These types of distractions are particularly dangerous and have been known to cause serious accidents. In addition, even when mounting structures are provided on or above the dashboard, the driver typically must divert his or her eyes from the road and/or remove his or her hands from the steering wheel to engage the electronic device, thereby diverting attention from the task of safely driving the vehicle.
As evidence of this danger, according to the most recent statistics at the time of preparing this specification, the National Safety Council (“NSC”) reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year. Further, nearly 330,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving and one out of every four car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving. Finally, texting while driving is six times more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk.
In response to the above-noted danger, the use of device mounts has become commonplace. These device mounts may be divided into two classes. The first class of mounts includes “off-steering-wheel” mounts (i.e., mounts attached to the vehicle at locations other than the steering wheel). As a result of its location, this class of device mounts requires the driver to turn his or her head, thereby diverting his or her eyes from of the road, in order to observe the mounted device. In addition, the driver must remove at least one hand from the steering wheel in order to physically interact with the mounted device. The second class of mounts includes steering-wheel mounts (i.e., mounts attached to the steering wheel). These mounts attempt to address the above-noted deficiencies of the first class by locating the mount on the steering wheel itself. As a result, the driver is required to divert his or her eyes less since the device is mounted at least partially within a safe driving line of sight. In addition, the driver is not required to remove his or her hands from the steering wheel in order to physically interact with the mounted device given the device's proximity to the driver's hands on the steering wheel.
The second class of mounts may be further divided into two subclasses of steering-wheel mounts. The first subclass of steering-wheel mounts includes mounts configured to mount the device on an axis of rotation of the steering wheel. On the other hand, the second subclass of steering-wheel mounts includes mounts configured to mount the device at any other location than on the axis of rotation of the steering wheel. As shown in FIGS. 1, 3A and 3B, with a device 1000 is mounted on an axis of rotation of a steering wheel 1010 as in the first subclass of steering-wheel mounts, the device 1000 is located at a “low” position relative to a safe driving line of sight 1020. As a result, in order for the driver to observe the mounted device 1000, the driver must at least intermittently divert his or her eyes from the road (see unsafe view cone 1022, FIG. 3B). Further, as shown in FIG. 2, with the device 1000 mounted at a location other than on the axis of rotation of the steering wheel 1010 as in the second subclass of steering-wheel mounts, with the device 1000 mounted in such a location, problems arise in that the device 1000 is rotated/moved concurrently with the steering wheel 1010 as the steering wheel 1010 is rotated by the driver (see, e.g., CN Pub. No. 204978447). As a result, the device 1000 becomes difficult to observe or interact with as the steering wheel 1010 rotates. Accordingly, both subclasses of steering-wheel mounts include significant deficiencies.
Within the first subclass of steering-wheel mounts, some prior art mounts (see, e.g., U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/804,815 (published Feb. 3, 2011 as U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0024470)) have relied upon gravity to maintain the mounted device in an upright position, as shown in FIG. 1. As a result, the device must necessarily be attached to the mount at a point above the device's center-of-gravity which results in the device being located even lower relative to a safe driving line of sight. Accordingly, in order for the driver to observe the mounted device, the driver must divert his or her eyes from the road. In addition, because the mounted device is permitted to rotate freely, the mounted device may rotate in response to: (1) static friction between the device and the mount and/or between components of the mount; (2) the device's inertia; (3) inadvertent contact with the device; etc. In addition, some devices (e.g., Samsung Galaxy S8) require a user to activate the device on a backside of the device. When the device is mounted on the axis of rotation of the steering wheel, a center console of the steering wheel may make the backside of the mounted device at least partially inaccessible thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, to activate the device.
Furthermore, traditional device mounts may, under certain circumstances (e.g., excessive rotation, inadvertent contact, a wreck, airbag deployment, etc.), permit the mounted device to become disconnected from the mount. Among other dangers, this can cause a distraction to the driver as the driver seeks to locate and remount the device. This can also cause safety concerns if the cell phone becomes disconnected during a wreck or airbag deployment as the device may be disconnected from the mount at a high rate of speed. Similarly, under certain circumstances (e.g., airbag deployment, etc.), even if the device remains connected to the mount, the device may be propelled from the steering wheel at a high rate of speed. In each of these circumstances, the device may pose a significant danger to the driver and other passengers of the vehicle.
Finally, it is has been determined that the components of traditional mounts secured to the device are otherwise useless in mounting the device to other objects and/or surfaces (e.g., a belt, a wall, a desk, etc.) besides the cell phone mount. In addition, traditional mounts fail to consider or provide for connectivity to an external power source to power or recharge the mounted device. As a result, the driver must frequently dismount the device to recharge the device or deal with the presence of a distracting power/charge cord.
As one development, some vehicles (see, e.g., Tesla Model 3) locate an instrument display 1030 outside of a safe driving line of sight 1020 (e.g., at a center of the dashboard) as shown in FIG. 3A and the unsafe view cone 1024 of FIG. 3C. As a result, in order for the driver to observe the instrument display 1030, the driver must intermittently divert his or her eyes from the road (see FIG. 3C). Accordingly, new apps from Google Play and the App Store (i.e., iTunes) have become available with the purpose of reducing driver distractions. These apps function to make user interfaces of the device simpler thereby making interaction with the device more efficient and therefore safer. Importantly, however, in order to observe the mounted device, the driver must nevertheless intermittently divert his or her eyes from the road and/or deal with rotation/movement of the mounted device concurrently with the steering wheel as the steering wheel is rotated by the driver.
Accordingly, although others have attempted to improve the safety of use of devices by the driver of a vehicle, there remain significant deficiencies and room for further improvement.
For example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,150,709 issued to Bake discloses mounting a “board” or “plate” to a steering wheel using cross members of the steering wheel. The disclosure of Bake is deficient, however, at least in that: (1) the “board” or “plate” is located at least partially outside of the driver's line of sight; (2) the mounted “board” or “plate” rotates concurrently with the steering wheel; (3) the “board” or “plate” prevents effective deployment of an airbag; etc.
As other examples, U.S. Pat. No. 5,060,260 issued to O'Connell, U.S. Pat. No. 5,622,296 issued to Pirhonen et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 6,328,271 issued to Haage et al. disclose swiveling device mounts. The disclosures of O'Connell, Pirhonen, and Haage are deficient, however, at least in that: (1) the mounted device is located at least partially outside of the driver's line of sight; (2) the mounted device rotates/moves concurrently with the steering wheel; (3) the mounted device may rotate inadvertently; (4) the backside of the mounted device is at least partially inaccessible; etc. In addition, the disclosures of O'Connell, Pirhonen, and Haage fail to provide a mechanism by which the mounted device may be effectively “locked” to the mount. As a result, the mounted device may become disconnected from the mount thereby posing a danger to the driver and other passengers of the vehicle as noted above. Finally, the disclosures of O'Connell, Pirhonen, and Haage fail to consider or provide for connectivity to an external power source.
Similarly, U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0029359 by Smith and U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0024470 by Hajarian disclose that gravity may be used to assist in keeping device attached by a swivel mount in remaining in an “about” upright position. The disclosures of Smith and Hajarian are deficient, however, at least in that: (1) the mounted device is located at least partially outside of the driver's line of sight; (2) the mounted device rotates/moves; (3) the mounted device may rotate inadvertently; (4) the backside of the mounted device is at least partially inaccessible; etc. In addition, the disclosures of Smith and Hajarian fail to provide a mechanism by which the mounted device may be effectively “locked” to the mount and fail to consider or provide for connectivity to an external power source.
As yet another example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,983,170 issued to Stulberger discloses the use of a “breakaway” wire for the purpose of non-interference with airbag deployment, but fails to disclose an apparatus or method by which the mounted device may be effectively “locked” to the mount so as to not become a danger to the driver and other passengers of the vehicle as noted above. Stulberger further discloses the use of a power/charge cord (i.e., “recharging wire”), but fails to disclose an apparatus or method by which the power/charge cord may be retained so as to not become a distraction to the driver. Furthermore, the disclosure of Stulberger is deficient at least in that: (1) the mounted device is located at least partially outside of the driver's line of sight; (2) the mounted device rotates/moves concurrently with the steering wheel; etc.
As yet another example, CN Pub. No. 204978447 (see FIG. 2) attempts to address some of the above-described deficiencies by mounting a device relatively high on a steering wheeling in conjunction with the use of a swiveling mount. Nevertheless, this disclosure remains deficient at least in that: (1) the mounted device remains at least partially outside of the driver's line of sight; (2) the mounted device rotates/moves concurrently with the steering wheel; (3) the mounted device may rotate inadvertently; (4) the backside of the mounted device is at least partially inaccessible; etc. In addition, the disclosure fails to provide a mechanism by which the mounted device may be effectively “locked” to the mount and fails to consider or provide for connectivity to an external power source.
As yet other examples, which are deficient for at least the same reasons as discussed above, the following are noted: U.S. Pat. No. 4,455,454 issued to Umebayashi; U.S. Pat. No. 4,698,838 issued to Ishikawa et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,850,015 issued to Martin; U.S. Pat. No. 4,852,147 issued to Suzuki et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,086,510 issued to Guenther et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,803 issued to Allen; U.S. Pat. No. 5,453,929 issued to Stove; U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,646 issued to Frank et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 6,131,042 issued to Lee; DE 197 39 626 by Weilbacher; DE 42 20 016 by Wardyn; and U.K. Pat. No. GB 2 326 560 issued to Stulberger.
Accordingly, it is noted that each of the aforementioned disclosures is deficient for at least the above-noted reasons. As a result, each of the aforementioned disclosures provides an unsafe, insecure or inconvenient mounting system. For all these reasons, it is readily apparent that a new and improved steering-wheel mount assembly is needed that will allow a driver to use devices in a safe, secure, and convenient manner by overcoming the above-noted deficiencies present in the aforementioned disclosures. In particular, the present disclosure describes a steering-wheel mount assembly that provides at least the following advantages: (1) the mounted device is located substantially within a safe driving line of sight at a relatively “high” position; (2) the fixed location of the mounted device is maintained regardless of steering wheel rotation (i.e., the mounted device does not rotate/move concurrently with the steering wheel); (3) the mounted device is maintained in an upright position (i.e., inadvertent rotation of the device is prohibited); (4) the backside of the mounted device (where biometric fingerprint sensors are sometimes located, see FIG. 15 sensors 102 and 103) is accessible to the driver; (5) mechanisms are provided for effectively “locking” the device to the mount; (6) the mount provides for the connectivity to an external power source; (7) a clip of the mount is universally usable to secure the device to other objects and/or surfaces (e.g., a belt, a wall, a desk, etc.); (8) cost savings are realized; etc. Although these advantages will become obvious throughout the present disclosure, other significant advantages may also be achieved and the aforementioned advantages should not be considered exhaustive or limiting in any manner.
The present disclosure has been developed in light of these problems and others that occur in the prior art. It should be appreciated, however, that the advantages obtained by the present disclosure are not limited to solving the above-described problems and admittedly provides a number of other significant advantages over the prior art.